Lot of revolutions happening these days, aren’t there? No sooner is Britain’s “wind power revolution” out in the open, than the excitement begins over the new solar “revolution”. This latest proposed scheme – to create ultra-thin, cheap solar power cells – is certainly an exciting development, if it works. Which is a big “if”, given that most if not all of the hype seems to have come from the company that makes the stuff. Given this, the Guardian’s optimism today seems rather less cautious than perhaps it should be. But then good news is good for business.

Here are my thoughts, as posted on comment is free:

Let’s not all wet our pants with excitement just yet. John Vidal’s article about this gets most of its information from the company itself, but states that they are “notoriously secretive and has not answered questions about its panels’ efficiency or their durability”. None of the other sources actually seem to have ratified the technology, so all the information is based on what the company themselves have said. And the word “revolution” in the title comes from Jeremy Leggett, who “said that it would be “breathtaking” if the technology proved as efficient as projected by the company.” IF.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy

I want this technology to work as much as anyone, but throwing up your hands and crying “hallelujah” at the first glimpse of something like this is more than a little foolish. Apart from anything else, we are still devising ever-more ingenious ways of extracting whatever fossil fuels from the ground - not for fun, but so they can be burnt. We are still expanding our airports (in anticipation of solar-powered jet engines? I think not). Unless we immediately put harsh restrictions on our carbon output in line with the science, what will technologies like this achieve, except adding a bit of green technology to an energy mix that makes runaway climate change inevitable?

In short, don’t believe the hype. We don’t know whether this works. And even if it does, technology alone cannot, will not solve this.

Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the death of US President Gerald Ford, which I thought was worth mentioning - not for any particular reason in itself, but because the coverage at the time provided a particularly unflattering reminder of some stark truths about the British press. There’s some commentary on how the British media covered his death here. Here and here are a couple of examples of how to write genocide out of history. Here, by contrast, is an example of good reporting (it’s not actually that difficult). Here is an honest appraisal of the media’s performance.

For more on the forgotten history, have a look at the US National Security Archives and the Yale Genocide Studies Programme. For some info on Britain’s role in particular, have a look here and here.

You’d think that anyone with some knowledge of this episode, and many others besides, would be hard put to talk about Britain’s historic commitment to human rights. Well funnily enough, the Europe and Central Asia associate director at Human Rights Watch managed it last June – referring, without irony, to “Britain’s long-standing commitment to promoting human rights around the world”. How it is that a high-profile figure of an organisation whose sole purpose is to protect human rights and publicise their abuses can make a comment like this simply in passing – as if it’s an assumed truth, just common knowledge – is beyond me. In reality, Britain’s historic role has demonstrated the exact opposite: utter disregard for human rights, and prioritising of our own commercial and strategic interests. But you wouldn’t know it.

The passing over of the East Timorese genocide in the days that followed Ford’s death, incidentally, has an infamous precedent, on which there’s a lot more info in these three clips. Have a look.

Update: some more evidence of that long-standing commitment has just been released by the National Archives in London. Also well worth a look-in.

from the Indy:

Britain's plans to build new coal-fired power stations as part of the country's efforts to address its looming energy crisis will completely undermine the Bali agreement on climate change and discredit Gordon Brown's commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, according to one of the world's leading climate scientists.

The warning will be made directly to the Prime Minister this week in a letter from James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who will urge Mr Brown to block plans to build up to eight new coal-fired power stations – the first in 30 years.

Dr Hansen, one of the first scientists to warn of climate change 20 years ago, said that coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and that building new power stations that burn it without capturing waste carbon dioxide will tip the planet towards irreversible warming.

Read the rest here.

Christmas should be about fostering genuine happiness, not frenzied consumerism and environmental destruction (say loony-left killjoy scrooges).

It was difficult not to notice something of a contrast in the presentation of some recent reporting of Afghan public opinion. According to a poll referenced by Gabriel Carlyle, writing in Peace News:

“74% supported the idea of negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

“54% also supported the idea of a coalition government between the Taliban and Western-backed president Hamid Karzai.

“52% agreed that all foreign troops should withdraw within five years (25% preferred one year).”

According to Andrew Anthony on the other hand, writing on Comment Is Free:

“only 14% of Afghans want foreign troops to go immediately, while 43% wanted troops to remain “as long as it takes”.”

Interestingly, both conclusions are derived from the same set of figures, which are available here. Below are the relevant tables:

The conclusion seems fairly clear: the aggregate level of Afghan opinion opposed to troops staying beyond three to five years is 52%, as Carlyle points out. The rational policy implication would be to set a timetable for withdrawal within five years, at the very most (though equally to remain for at least three years).

Much of Anthony’s piece is the usual Eustonian nonsense, and I’ve had an illuminating exchange with him on some of it on comment is free (which you can find under his article). The main thrust of it, however, is a response to Seumas Milne, who, we are told, believes that “[t]he only role for non-Muslims in this debate is to urge the government to remove British troops”.

The article to which he links doesn’t actually propound this opinion, so to clarify that we have to look elsewhere. Milne wrote a Guardian article focusing specifically on Afghanistan in August, so let’s start there. He writes that “[f]or Afghans, six years after they were supposed to have been liberated, life is getting worse.” This, certainly, is not in alignment with what the figures show – a slender majority believe things are going in the right direction; women are better off than in 2002; as are Afghans in general.

On negotiation with the Taliban, however, Milne has this to say:

“Britain is now fighting its fourth war in Afghanistan in 170 years, and might have learned by now that you cannot impose a government from outside against a people’s will. Earlier this summer the Afghan senate called for a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops and negotiations with the Taliban, as did the Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, this month. There will be no peace or stability in Afghanistan while foreign troops remain, and a wider settlement will surely have to include the Taliban …”

Actual NATO policy is not moving in this direction – indeed quite the opposite. Milne, referring to the escalation of British military activity in the country (of which we witnessed more recently), writes:

“the plan is to increase British troop numbers from the current 7,000, and ministers, commanders and officials have been hammering home the message all summer that Britain is in Afghanistan, as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, insisted, for the long haul.

““We should be thinking in terms of decades,” the British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, declared; Brigadier John Lorimer, British commander in Helmand province, thought the military occupation might last more than Northern Ireland’s 38 years; and the defence secretary, Des Browne, last week confirmed that the government had made a “long-term commitment” to stay in Afghanistan to prevent it reverting to a terrorist training ground. Even allowing for the Brown government’s need for political cover if it is indeed to run down its forces in Iraq, that all amounts to a pretty clear policy of indefinite occupation - one on which it has not thought necessary to consult the British people, let alone the Afghans.”

Decades? 38 years? Long haul? Long-term commitment? The contempt for Afghan public opinion could hardly be clearer. What about their belief in negotiating with the Taliban? Well, that’s not happening either, at least if Gordon Brown has anything to do with it:

“He insisted his aim was “to defeat the insurgency by eliminating their leadership. I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiation with these people.””

It is certainly tempting to try and take the reins out of our government’s hands by demanding a full and immediate exit from the country – but, if it came down to a straight choice between a full and immediate withdrawal and a continued presence, the former would have to be considered a somewhat amoral, and certainly undemocratic, position to support, given the state of Afghan public opinion. Another possibility, of course, is replacing our troops with a UN force for the country, to which Britain and others should contribute logistical, financial and other support. None of the Afghan population has been quizzed on such a subject, so it is currently impossible to know whether they would support it (which is the major problem with such polls, of course – you only get answers to the questions you bother to ask). Given our country’s continuing defiance of Afghan popular will, however, it might well be a preferable option. Besides this, evidently we should most certainly be pressing for a deal with the Taliban rather than continued escalation and bloodshed.

UPDATE: I contacted Keith Neuman of Environics a little while ago to see if he could give any further information on the correlation (or otherwise) between Afghans’ regarding the question of when troops leave as important and support for their presence. Here’s his breakdown of the figures (many thanks to Neuman for providing this):

“First, there is a strong relationship between opinion as to whether the presence of foreign troops has been a “good thing” or a “bad thing” in respondents’ local area, on the one hand, and opinion on how long foreign troops should stay. More than half (55%) of those who say the presence has been a “good thing” for their local area say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while 3 percent say they should “leave right away”. By comparison, only one in five (19%) who say the presence has been a “bad thing” for their local area say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while four in ten (42%) say they should “leave right away”. The relationship is somewhat stronger for the question of whether foreign troops have been a good thing or a bad thing for the country (as opposed to local area). More than half (54%) of those who say the presence has been a “good thing” for the country say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while 2 percent say they should “leave right away”. By comparison, only one in ten (10%) who say the presence has been a “bad thing” say that troops should “stay however long it takes” while six in ten (58%) say they should “leave right away”.

“There is also a strong relationship between opinion on the question of whether the presence of foreign troops has been a “good thing” or a “bad thing” in respondents’ local area, on the one hand, and the importance placed on the question of when troops leave. Eight in ten (80%) who say that the foreign troop presence has been a “good thing” for their local area say that their opinion on the timing of troop withdrawals “matters a great deal”, compared to four in ten (39%) among those who say that the troop presence has been a “bad thing”. The results are similar for the issue of whether the presence of foreign troops has been good for the country. Eight in ten (78%) who say that the foreign troop presence has been a “good thing” for the country say that their opinion on troop withdrawals “matters a great deal”, compared to one half (49%) among those who say that the troop presence has been a “bad thing” for the country.”

(Correspondence, 7 January 2008)

I sent the following letter to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, earlier today.

Dear Mr Rusbridger,

I hope you are well. I note with some alarm that your recent leader on Iraq posits the figure of “Up to 85,000 Iraqi deaths” since May 2003. Where exactly does this figure come from? Iraq Body Count’s currently gives a maximum of 85,713. This count is necessarily hugely conservative. IBC derive their figures from newspaper reports of deaths that can be cross-referenced – in a context in which, as Madeleine Bunting has recently noted in your paper, the Iraq war has now become “nigh on impossible to report”. As she writes, “the number of journalists killed (now at least 138) means that this war is near private”; consequently, “It's no longer a war that is accessible to public scrutiny or to democratic engagement.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2228636,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2205309,00.html

As you will no doubt be aware, there are at least three credible surveys that have put the figure significantly higher. The first of these was published in the Lancet in October 2004, and put the death toll at around 98,000. A second study was published in the same journal in October 2006, which put the death toll at around 655,000.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/lancet04.pdf

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

The latter survey was confirmed as credible by the private opinion of prominent government specialists. According to the BBC,

“the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were “close to best practice” and the study design was “robust”.

“Another expert agreed the method was “tried and tested”.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

A more recent poll conducted by the Opinion Research Business in September 2007 suggested “a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003”. Taking into account the margin of error, “the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063”. The higher-end figure here is around 17 times the one you give in your editorial.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet studies, substantiated the latter survey. In his words:

“The poll is 14 months later with deaths escalating over time. That alone accounts for most of the difference [between the October 2006 Lancet paper and the ORB poll]. There are confidence interval issues, there are reasons to assume the Lancet estimate is too low but the same motives for under-reporting should apply to ORB. Overall they seem very much to align.”

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070918_the_media_ignore.php

Given the necessarily hugely conservative nature of the Iraq Body Count figure, and the substantiation by the co-author of a poll described by government experts as “robust” and “close to best practice” of the ORB survey, why do you opt for a figure of “Up to 85,000 Iraqi deaths”, rather than “Up to 1,446,000 Iraqi deaths”?

This is not the first time I have written to the Guardian on this subject, and I am distressed that your reporting continues to significantly misrepresent what the figures show. It is particularly extraordinary given that your paper published a recent editorial – “Sliding back into the abyss” – in which you describe the Democratic Republic of Congo as “Emerging from a war which involved six foreign armies and claimed 3 million lives”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,,2161228,00.html

This figure itself, as you will no doubt be aware, comes from a survey by the IRC, which employs a “household-based cluster sampling” technique, and was published in the Lancet. The (2006) Lancet survey of Iraq mortality, you will note, also employed a “cluster sample survey” of Iraqi “households”.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606679233/fulltext

Even more extraordinary, this precise double-standard was noted by George Monbiot, writing in your paper, in November 2005. “Now,” as he wrote, “whenever a newspaper or broadcaster produces an estimate of civilian deaths, the Lancet report is passed over in favour of lesser figures.” He also quoted the words of Iraq Body Count’s compilers on the significant shortfalls of their own methodology. In their words, “it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. … our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.”

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/08/bringing-out-the-dead/

Why is it then, that you continue to use IBC’s figure as representing a maximum death toll? Why do you apply such an extraordinary double-standard in reporting Iraq and such cases as the DRC?

In light of the concerns noted above, I would be grateful if you would issue a correction and clarification on this point, and publish a copy of this letter either in your paper or on your website.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Holmes

It can only take a near-unfathomable level of self-deception to be Nick Cohen. As the guy wrote in last Sunday’s Observer:

“I don’t think the moral blindness of the intelligentsia can last much longer. Obviously, some who have lost their bearings after Iraq will never find them again and stagger around bellowing for the rest of their days, but the hysterical mood is lifting from others.”

The best explanation for sentences like these can only be a careful attempt at self-satire. Surely. A few paragraphs previously, on the protest of Brian Haw in Parliament Square, Cohen is telling us that the man “can’t ask who is killing whom in Iraq”. For Nick, the answer is quite simple: “the death squads of the Baathists and Iranian-backed Shia militias”; people like “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq”. In Afghanistan, the problems fall at the door of “the Taliban’s crimes and ideology”. Put simply, it’s the bad guys.

As for the good guys, our only crime is our insufficient resolve in seeing the job through to the end. Says Nick:

“The best justification for Haw’s morality is that if British and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot guarantee order, they are indirectly responsible for atrocities committed by their opponents. As the inevitable conclusion is that they should try harder to defeat their enemies, it is not a point that Haw would want to hear.”

Poor, deluded Brian Haw. If only he could aspire to the level of rational perspicacity promoted by Observer columnists. He cannot understand that it is not we who are bombing, shooting, beating and torturing innocent Iraqis. The deaths squads, of course, have nothing to do with us. Iraqis continue to think we’re doing a great job. We are there with a UN mandate. Our presence has helped stem the violence. Our enemy, on the other hand, are ruthless fanatics, jihadists and Baathists hell-bent on causing suffering and mayhem.

Another member of Cohen’s camp, Oliver Kamm, argues along similar lines. Kamm, indeed, holds Cohen in such high regard that he has nominated the latter’s What’s Left? as one of his books of the year. (Observant readers will note that he chooses the later edition, which carefully omits one extraordinary slur against a deceased academic, so perhaps he has at least some shame.)

In any case, on Iraq, it’s the old familiar line from Ollie:

“British and American forces operating under a UN mandate in Iraq are not practising terrorism; they are fighting it. They are not targeting civilians; they are protecting civilians.”

It’s instructive to note that, when questioned previously on a similar line of argument (“It is flatly untrue … that US troops are a cause of violence …”), Kamm provided no substantive evidence to refute what a large majority of Iraqis – not to mention the head of the British army – believe.

As it now turns out, residents of Basra don’t really miss us. Yet this latest addition to an increasingly voluminous pile of evidence does not seem to in any way alter the trajectory of writers like Cohen and Kamm. Which is hardly a surprise, of course. Their arguments on this note are supported not by evidence, but precisely by “stagger[ing] around bellowing” in a “hysterical mood” and a state of “moral blindness”; by constant repetition of a constant theme: it’s not us who are to blame – it’s them. The “lapdogs of war”, then, are a lot like real dogs: they can see the world only in black and white.

P.S. Did I say “bombing”? I did.

The Independent is generally acknowledged as having one of the best records among the mainstream press for punchy and effective reporting on climate change issues – particularly with some of their dramatic and attention-grabbing front pages, which have helped to raise the profile of the issue. It was of some interest, therefore, to see how they would report last Saturday’s march for urgent action on climate change, which took place in London, and was joined by protesters in countries across the world.

The march, which took place in conditions of freezing cold and continual rain, culminated in a gathering in Grosvenor Square, opposite the American embassy. Here, a number of speeches slated the government’s record on climate change. The powerful concluding speech was delivered by George Monbiot, who emphasised that our governments “are not prepared, they are not even preparing” to stop runaway climate change – and called on those present to take urgent, direct action to prevent the government’s continuing support for the extraction of fossil fuels.

So how would one of the UK’s best papers on environmental issues report the protest? How would the issues raised be covered?

As it turns out, the overall message on the part of the Indy was one of massive reassurance on new government proposals for action. The front page story reported dramatic news of “Britain’s wind power revolution”. The paper was almost breathless with wonder over the government’s plan for a large expansion in offshore wind. “The Independent on Sunday”, according to the piece, “has learnt that, in an astonishing U-turn, the Secretary of State for Business, John Hutton, will announce that he is opening up the seas around Britain to wind farms in the biggest ever renewable energy initiative.” This is a move that will “produce 25 gigawatts (GW) of electricity by 2020, in addition to the 8GW already planned – enough to meet the needs of all the country’s homes.”

The paper’s Leader article was equally dramatic, announcing “The planet’s chance of a lifetime”. “Finally,” the leader-writers opened, “… there are signs that Britain and the United States are starting to measure up to the immensity of the task.” Following through with these proposals heralded nothing less than a rehabilitation of the premier, despite his trifling mistakes: “This is more like the Gordon Brown we thought we were getting this summer, before this autumn’s wobbles and weaknesses.” With the UK government largely redeemed, the onus is now on the US. In the words of the article’s curt conclusion: “Over to you, Mr Bush.” The words devoted to the protest also gave interesting prominence to the role of the US: “Some posters,” wrote the paper, “carried a picture of President George Bush and the words “Wanted for crimes against the planet”.”

The average reader, one imagines, is left with a sense of relief. As far as one can tell, the UK government is making massive, ambitious strides; though the US, despite some movement, is still lagging behind. Those who marched on 8 December, by contrast, are hard-pressed to avoid feeling shoved to the margins – and by one of the better papers in the mainstream press.

As it turns out, the government’s proposal means a good deal less in context. Compare them with the necessary goals set by the Centre for Alternative Technology’s Zero Carbon Britain proposal, which takes as its aim “Reaching zero carbon emissions” – a goal which “is now clearly a scientific necessity” (as has now been confirmed by research from the University of Victoria in Canada, and elsewhere). The report is authoritative, and is based on the latest available science. It has received plaudits from the former Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Met Office Director General John Houghton, and has substantially influenced the Liberal Democrats’ climate change programme.

According to CAT, their own proposal “would require approximately 140 offshore wind farms the size of the 1GW London Array spread out around our 8,000 mile coastline. This is more than four times the Government’s proposed 33GW from offshore wind” (my emphasis).

Significantly, the government’s proposal is next to meaningless in the context of meeting the necessary emissions targets without “powering down”. “Crucially,” as one CAT representative puts it, “we need to reduce our energy demand significantly in the first place”. As the recent UN Human Development Report pointed out, the government’s emissions targets are themselves (a) useless, presuming the goal is to avoid runaway climate change; and (b) not being met. Recent research from Oxford University contributes further to this ugly picture. Rather than falling 15%, as officially pronounced, the UK’s emissions, when those excluded from official figures are accounted for, have actually risen 19%. In the report’s own words, this “suggests that the decline in greenhouse gas emissions from the UK economy may have been to a considerable degree an illusion.”

It really is not beyond the Independent’s writers to report this stuff, give serious critical scrutiny to government pronouncements, and report them in context. So why did it not do so? Why, indeed, did this paper, with its reputation for being environmental conscious, frame its coverage not around the perspective of the critical masses assembling across the world on the previous day, but around a seriously skewed representation of a government policy proposal?

The answer, I suspect, may lie in the second paragraph of that front-page article. “The Independent on Sunday has learnt that …”. The tricksy use of the passive is more than a little question-begging. How has the paper “learnt” of this proposal? Who told them? It is not overly cynical to suggest that this is yet another instance of a “favours for favours” approach to the relationship between government and media. Papers, with heavy constraints in terms of time, money and personnel, continually need something to report; governments need to make sure that what is reported reflects their line and their agenda. The use of what Nicholas Jones calls “judicious leaks to favoured journalists” has proved a key method by which governments are able shape the media agenda. Hungry for the competitive advantage garnered by exclusive access to ministers and information, journalists are eager to snap up stories handed down from on high. Since it is essential, of course, that the flow of information is preserved, it is important that journalists try to avoid biting the hand that feeds them. This approach has a long history, and New Labour have proved particularly adept at playing the game. As Jones recounts:

“Campbell’s diaries The Blair Years provided countless examples of his leaks to newspapers such as the Sun and Daily Mirror. Lance Price, an eager pupil of Mandelson and Campbell, peppered his book, The Spin Doctor’s Diary, with descriptions of how during his time in the Prime Minister’s press office, Downing Street became a clearing house for leaking government secrets.”

The use of these tactics has not ceased under Blair’s successor. Writes Jones:

“Brown understands the psychology of journalists and uses leaks and exclusives as a way of trying to discipline the media. If he can get political correspondents into the mindset that they too might get an offer of preferential treatment, that they too might be in line for similar favours, there is every chance they might be less hostile and prepared to go along with the spin which the government is offering.”

And so it is that the paper perhaps most noted for its environmental coverage, on the day following a major climate change protest, and in the midst the Bali talks, “learnt” of such a supposedly promising government initiative. The protestors were relegated to a small picture on page 2 and some brief, passing mentions. Because the Indy was potentially the greatest P.R. liability on the day after the protest, one presumes, on this occasion, this paper got the goods - and its coverage was successfully tamed.

Whether the government will even act on its latest proposals, or, as some have suggested, fail to deliver as it has in the past, remains to be seen. But given the government’s wholesale aversion towards taking the problem of climate change seriously – as it attempts to secure the long-term future of coal-fired power and expands its aviation sector – anyone who is serious about not only holding the government to its word, but forcing it to do what it takes to prevent the potentially catastrophic consequences of runaway climate change, needs to raise their game. Recent actions have paved the way – it behoves us all to rise to the challenge, and follow their example.

The first two of these images are from the front page of Guardian Unlimited today. The third is from the page they link to.

Wrote George Monbiot yesterday:

"In a previous article I showed how by switching the whole economy over to the use of electricity and by deploying the latest thinking on regional supergrids, grid balancing and energy storage, you could run almost the entire energy system on renewable power. The major exception is flying (don't expect to see battery-powered jetliners), which suggests that we should be closing rather than opening runways."

The newspaper for which he writes, however, continues to fuel the expansion of that industry - knowing full well what the implications are. When this is the best our mainstream media can do, something has surely gone horribly wrong.

Then again, perhaps not.

I wrote a bit about Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”, and the rather marked limits of its parent company Unilever’s devotion to the project previously here and elsewhere. Naturally, it tells us quite a lot about what the bogus phenomenon of “corporate social responsibility” actually amounts to.

Now look what one legend has done. Rye Clifton, we salute you.

So what’s Unilever’s response? It’s an interesting one.

Simon Clift, Unilever’s chief marketing officer, says that the Axe commercials should be taken with a pinch of salt: “It’s a spoof on the mating game. The joke is on the boy. It’s just a few bloggers in the US who don’t get it.”

Whether it’s a “joke” or not, the presence of the same “stifling stereotypes” against which the company elsewhere directs its invective are obviously present. Unfortunately, it’s not the worst the company can do. How, for instance, does Simon Clift intend to laugh this one off?

If it makes you feel better about yourself, runs the argument for everything from snake oil to smocks, it must be a good thing. Clearly, though, there are ways and ways to make one’s customers “feel better” about themselves. Take Dove, whose campaign for “real beauty” has won plaudits from most corners. Its current ad is called Onslaught, and shows a young girl being bombarded with mind-bendingly suggestive beauty industry imagery. Slogan: “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does”.

Yet for every brand like Dove, there are 10 more like Fair & Lovely, which sells whitening face creams to Indian women. Fair & Lovely’s packaging depicts an unhappy dark-skinned woman changing into a happy light-skinned woman. The New York Times recently pointed out that “it once focused its advertising on the problems a dark-skinned woman might have finding romance ... The company’s ads now show lighter skin conferring a distinct advantage: helping a woman land a job normally held by men ... Their current ad is taglined The Power of Beauty”. Perhaps needless to say, both Fair & Lovely and Dove are owned by Unilever.

Have a gander at some examples from this atrocious campaign here.

As ever, huge levels of resources, ingenuity and human talent are being poured into an industry whose goal is to make people increasingly miserable, insecure and dissatisfied with themselves - in an effort to turn a profit for some of the wealthiest people on the planet. At some point, it seems to me, we’re going to have to choose whether to promote and protect what’s genuinely valuable, or continue down the destructive path on which we’re currently set. Which is it going to be?

I’ve been having an interesting exchange with one Oliver Kamm on Roy Greenslade’s Guardian blog. Check it out. (I'm posting as notbored - ed.)

I've also written some short notes on what the latest UN Human Development Report (among other things) tells us about Britain’s policy on climate change. It’s not good news, to be honest. Have a look.

Finally, be sure to have a look at Naomi Klein’s recent take on what the rising market in defence tells us about the course we are currently on. The picture Klein paints matches closely the one diagnosed and predicted by security analyst Paul Rogers in Losing Control: Global Security in the 21st Century. Rather than dealing with the major root causes of instability and insecurity - environmental degradation and rampant inequality among them - the rich world is essentially pursuing a strategy of “liddism” - building the fortress walls ever higher in an effort to keep the lid on a melting pot of global tensions, and their violent expression. Unfortunately, as recent events are demonstrating all too well, in an age of asymmetric warfare such a strategy is less than likely to succeed. That’s quite apart from its moral repugnance, of course. Klein provides a compelling insight into how this strategy is continuing to be applied, and extended.

Having written recently on George Monbiot’s problematic article on Israel and Iran, I was somewhat alarmed to read Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, in his response to this piece, quoting Monbiot’s own words as evidence of the Iranian threat. “Monbiot himself acknowledges the Iranian peril”, writes Prosor. “As he points out: “The president is a Holocaust denier opposed to the existence of Israel.””

Monbiot does a bit more than that, of course – as I pointed out previously, he prefaces that sentence with the words “Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad.” He doesn’t specify which acts of terror, which might lend credence to our leaders’ distinctly dubious and unverified claims that the country has been arming Iraqi insurgents – a dangerous ambiguity to leave hanging. “Dangerous and unpredictable” is itself deeply questionable, as I have pointed out; and the claim that Iran is “joining” a “nuclear arms race” remains entirely unverified, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency – and there is some counter-evidence which is worth considering.

I hope Monbiot will be as alarmed as many of his readers by the fact that the Israeli ambassador is buttressing his arguments against Iran with Monbiot’s own claims. Those beating the drums for war not only can read Monbiot’s claims as supportive of their arguments on this point, but evidently do. It would certainly be a very good thing if he could issue a clarification of some of the more damaging points in his article. To reiterate some of the issues worth clearing up:

1.
There is no solid evidence that Iran is arming or supporting Iraqi insurgents.

2.
Israel’s foreign minister has privately admitted that Iranian nukes would not pose an existential threat to Israel.

3.
The assessment of the well-respected Royal Institute of International Affairs counters the idea that Iran is “a dangerous and unpredictable state” – Western belligerence notwithstanding.

4.
“Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” is not an accurate representation of the distribution of power within the Iranian elite: the power of the President is circumscribed, in particular on foreign policy, by the Supreme Leader.

5.
The Supreme Leader, whose authority is of course religiously-derived, has issued a fatwa against the stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons.

6.
According to the IAEA, there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. This is an assumption on the part of the Western media – it is by no means fact.

It is more important than ever that the media tell the truth about Iran. Those who wish to avoid war therefore need to be on their guard about reproducing some of the speculation and misrepresentation that will help make such a war possible.